As Anthony Watts points out, this photo is available for licensing from iStockPhoto (and for the record, I did pay for the photo you see above), complete with the following disclaimer:

Photo of house under several feet of graphically-rendered flood waters.

Why bother investigating things "scientifically," when you can just whip the public into a fear-induced green frenzy?

I'll echo what Mr. Watts said (emphasis and links mine):

But the real question is, with somanydifferentphotos of real flooded houses available, why did they choose one that was not real? Surely they know such a report will be highly scrutinized?

...if principal National Climatic Data Center authors Dr.’s Thomas Karl and Peterson can’t even bother to check if the photos they use are real or not, or even spot such obvious fakes, it makes one wonder just how much fact checking went into the other parts of the report.

Brian Ledbetter of Snapped Shot passed this along, a draft report from a global warming group that was too lazy to find an image of a flooded home that suited their ethos, and instead purchased a stock Photoshop creation to...

Hm, a stock photo in a draft? Obviously a conspiracy. You embarrass me.

#6 Johnny Coelacanth 07-Aug-2008

Speaking as a human being, I too am embarrassed by your reaching, "gotcha" ignorance, Brian. It's a draft report. Even if it was the FINAL report, how does the presence of a stock photo change anything? Oh, it calls into question the veracity of the science in the report? *How* does it do this? Can you provide _any_ evidence that the doctors who prepared the report had ANYTHING to do with the graphics used to present the final piece? I thought not.

#7 Benjamin Childs 07-Aug-2008

Every once in a while I find myself reflexively latching onto particular news stories, or even particular details within stories. Sometimes I find myself unquestioningly accepting facts in a story when it aligns with my pre-existing biases, and sometimes I find myself looking for holes in a story or argument so that I can reject the entire canard. This is not uncommon....or rather....this is completely normal human behavior. Just as our eyes work by picking up the faintest details and using our memories and expectations to fill in the rest, our mind works the same way. This post is an extreme example of this phenomenon in it's most flagrant form.

In a 200 page report detailing numerous potential plausible outcomes (or implausible, depending on the veracity of the facts), this blogger has disregarded every fact contained within based upon a single picture. Because they used this picture instead of an actual photo of a flooded house, the blogger concluded that the U.S. Climate Change Science Program didn't address this issue scientifically, but ideologically, and is engaging in fear-mongering. But for that to make any sense at all we'd all have to accept this notion: real photos of flooded houses have no subliminal affect on people, while obviously photoshopped images of flooded homes tug at our heart-strings and compel us to make fear-based, irrational decisions.

This is beyond stupid. If the photo above showed global-warming-caused lava flowing out the chimney, and a fiery red sky caused by a 95% depletion of the current atmosphere, then you would have a point about fear-mongering. But I fail to see how using a real photo of a flooded house, as you suggest, would have been any more or less fear-inducing. This is just an extreme example of someone's opinion forming their interpretation of the facts, rather than the opposite.

One day, Brian C. Ledbetter, you will acknowledge this, and you will have taken your first step into a much larger world.

#8 Joe 07-Aug-2008

Say what you like about constructing and testing models based on the available data, at least it's an ethos. Now nihilists, those guys are jerks.

Anyway, do you have to work to be this ignorant, or is it a natural gift?

#9 Syd B 07-Aug-2008

I am more disturbed by kerning in this report

#10 Kevin 07-Aug-2008

I am disappointed in this post for many reasons, beyond the previously stated fact that this is one photo out of a 200-page draft.

I came across this page after visiting one of my favorite blogs, "Sadly, No!" After reading the entry, I clicked on the link out of a natural curiosity and a desire to see the picture in question. Instead of being directed to the article, I was sent to a message stating that the blog "isn't on [your] 'nice' list," and that I was sent here by "a bunch of anti-American hatemongers."

This is wrong in so many ways. It is very immature to keep those who disagree with you from participating in the discussion. It is also not only insulting to call that blog "anti-American," but it insults me as well, as it implies that I am also "anti-American" for reading it.

What I see here is nothing more than a disgusting example of censorship in the hope of beating back crticism from your very weak argument.

#11 paul 07-Aug-2008

Not to pile on, but this is pretty lame. Did you somehow miss the text at the bottom of each page that says not to quote or cite the draft report? Any ethical qualms there? You take work product that is explicitly not for publication and refer to it as if it were finished. And you think this is a notch in your belt as a media critic of some sort?

Have you ever done any kind of work for publication that didn't involve crayons? If you are capable of embarrassment, I expect this post to disappear down the Memory Hole. I'm not holding my breath.

And the goofy referer blocking that is easily defeated with the serious wizardry that is "copy and paste", very impressive.

#12 conumbdrum 07-Aug-2008

A photoshopped image!? I knew that those capitalism-hating, Jesus-reviling environazis had been lying through their granola-stained teeth about this global warming bullsh*t from the very beginning... and now we have conclusive proof. Thank you, Brian, thank you. Al Gore will pay dearly for this, mark my words.

#13 Ted 08-Aug-2008

Mr. Bedwetter, you have no idea how hard it was to get to your blog from that Sadly,No link. The copying and pasting involved just proves how effective your LGF-esque blocking technique is.

#14 SJohn 08-Aug-2008

Y'know what'd be a cool Photoshop? CY's boner in your mouth.

Although actually, I bet you don't need Photoshop to get that pic.

#15 Boner-in-Mouth 08-Aug-2008

Wow.

Just wow.

#16 hyphenista 08-Aug-2008

Climate change refuted again! When will scientists wake up and realize that all their "data" and "experiments" can't compete with conservative ideology? Just look at this track record:

The Iraqis will greet us as liberators(More U.S. soldiers have died since "Mission Accomplished" than during the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein)

Regime change in Iraq will be easy (Still there cleaning up our mess!)

Iraq and al Qaeda are working together (No evidence for any sort of link)

The invasion of Iraq will pay for itself (Then why are we borrowing all of that money from China?)

Regime change in Iraq will drive down the price of oil (Oil hit $140 a barrel, just like Obama bin Laden said it should)

Nobody could have predicted that the levees in New Orleans would fail (In fact, Dubya was warned that it was a strong possibility)

Deregulating the mortgage industry will be good for the economy (Um...)

Abstinence only education works (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!)

Obama's advice to Americans to keep their tires properly inflated is a ridiculous energy policy (In fact, it would cut down on our gas consumption by an estimated 3-4%, whereas offshore drilling in the US would only provide about 1% of our average consumption)

Dear Pinheads,

You have been wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong for as long as I can remember. When will you discover that the conservative experiment in America has utterly failed? You guys have had complete control over Washington for much of the last eight years, and Americans OVERWHELMINGLY (like, uh, 80%) think this county is on the wrong track.

Go back to your red states and cling to your guns and your religion and let the adults figure out how to get us out of this mess.